RTL Belgium SA
European Court of Justice
E.C.J. Case C-517/09 (2010)
- Written by Victoria Sarant , JD
Facts
In October 2009, the investigatory office of the Broadcasting Authority of the French Community of Belgium received a complaint that television company RTL Belgium SA had broadcast a seven-hour teleshopping program, even though the legal limit for teleshopping programs was three hours. The investigatory office sent a letter to RTL Belgium to ask about the violation, but RTL Belgium responded that RTL Belgium’s parent, a Luxembourg company, was responsible for RTL Belgium’s broadcasting. RTL Belgium thus claimed that the Belgian authorities could not carry out the investigation. The Licensing and Control Authority of the Broadcasting Authority (the licensing authority) wanted to submit a question regarding the proper interpretation of the law governing the media dispute to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling. However, under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the ECJ had jurisdiction to issue the preliminary ruling only if the licensing authority qualified as a court or tribunal. The Belgian government argued that the licensing authority was a court or tribunal under ECJ precedent. However, the Luxembourg government and RTL Belgium asserted that the licensing authority did not qualify as a court or tribunal because its structure and composition meant that the licensing authority was not sufficiently independent.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.